WR did not fix the two biggest issues in WvW and should be put on hold until these are resolved.

[ChrisWhitey.9076]

World Restructuring [WR] had large queues during prime time and prevented people from getting in the map. Skill lag was god awful because there were too many people on the map with boons. WR was suppose to spread people out to fix these issues but we know now that it is not an unbalanced population issue that is the source of the problem. Anyone else have any thoughts?

Edit: So it sounds like all post before about WR fixing lag and queues with population re-balance were wrong so I will accept that and move forward. So if anet wants to put focus on WR over other issues that currently exist in game is WR really more important than stability?

Also lets keep the class balance issues out of WvW. Blanace of classes is another team and not the WvW dev team.

Edited February 13 by ChrisWhitey.9076
Update based on comments

[MedievalThings.5417]

11 minutes ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

WR had large queues during prime time and prevented people from getting in the map. Skill lag was god awful because there were too many people on the map. WR was suppose to spread people out to fix these issues but we know now that it is not a population issue that is the source of the problem. Anyone else have any thoughts?

Those are actually features.  The two problems with WR is that it does nothing to address off-hours ktrains and stacking.  The other two problems are boons and boon sharing.  I won't even go into the other two problems of downstate or class balance.  I think I'm getting off-topic.

[Chaba.5410]

34 minutes ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

WR was suppose to spread people out to fix these issues but we know now that it is not an unbalanced population issue that is the source of the problem. Anyone else have any thoughts?

When I read this, I get the sense that you don't have a good understanding of what "the problem" is and how WR addresses it. WR isn't supposed to address "these issues" of skill lag and queues directly. If all three teams have enough players to queue maps during a skirmish, that's WR working. If all three teams are only queuing one map during a skirmish, that is also WR working well. If all three teams have no queues but players available are balanced, that is also WR working.

Edited February 12 by Chaba.5410

[ChrisWhitey.9076]

17 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

When I read this, I get the sense that you don't have a good understanding of what "the problem" is and how WR addresses it. WR isn't supposed to address "these issues" of skill lag and queues directly.

This is a fair point as the cause is not population based but Anets solution was to always reduce the population size on maps to fix it to the point that we have seen around 60 be the cap per team. With queues being an issue that number has been increased to the point we have both issues. Boonball has made skill lag worse but that is better off for the balance team to fix hopefully they have done better work for the state of WvW than the WvW team.

[Dawdler.8521]

10 minutes ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

With queues being an issue that number has been increased to the point we have both issues. 

We have not seen any increase in the cap, which was lowered from 85ish to 70ish. It has nothing to do with increased queues lol. Queues “increased” lately with the beta because more people played WvW, first week had 2.65 million kills and deaths, WvW normally see maybe ~1.5 million. 

Edited February 12 by Dawdler.8521

[Morden Kain.3489]

Except that the WR this past "beta" did not fix the queue issue, or ensure there was a balance on reset.  We watched from our start point as Green and Blue swarmed the Red side.  We were completely out numbered, and out maned.  It took nearly 15 minutes for the "EBG fake queue" to start letting people into the map.  Once that happened, we were able to take everything back.  Still though, that is a massive issue for a reset night when the teams are remixed.

[XenesisII.1540]

There was also an influx of pve players because of the event bonus, or players returning from a break to play with their guilds for WR, that probably led to more players than usual. If all three teams were having four map queues at the same time, that means WR worked on spreading the population properly.

Map caps were not changed, what actually happened was you had more people to fill the maps for a change. If this will happen going forward after WR is permanently implemented, then they will have to consider fixing up eotm to help with the queues. But first they need to fix the queue bugs, which they've said they fixed multiple times but it only seems to get worse.

Skill lag happens regardless of WR, that's mostly an issue with boons spam in zergs, which the balance team doesn't give two kittens about, let alone skill balance itself, so good luck with that. WR is not the answer to that issue.

[Chaba.5410]

These betas test their "current iteration" of the matchmaking algorithm.  So they are working on adjustments.

The queue bug really does need to get moved up in priority.  Seems to happen more often when there are more players.

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

World Restructuring [WR] had large queues during prime time and prevented people from getting in the map. Skill lag was god awful because there were too many people on the map with boons. WR was suppose to spread people out to fix these issues but we know now that it is not an unbalanced population issue that is the source of the problem. Anyone else have any thoughts?

People keep equating queues as it didn't work, where as it is a sign that it did. If you didn't have queues during primetime on reset and you did during the WR it means people from other servers were mixed with you and you saw normal queues. Likewise if you were on a server that only stacked one map and then after WR there were queues on all maps that was also a sign of it working. What you need to consider is how often and when you were outnumbered and on what maps. WR was stated to be accounting for tags. In that data point they may need to drill further down into. Are they weighing public and private tags differently, are they weighting tags on per maps? I don't think they could attribute players that will take action without tags from ones that will. Some tags do seem more prone to take action on different maps and could see this some during the betas. Hence if you were seeing outnumbered when and why would come into question.

Skill lag was not part of the WR and its source, is unknown at this time and comes in a number of flavors. During the WR saw 3 way zerg fights in SMC with no skill latency. Then other times saw 2 v 8 on alpine and skill lag was thru the roof. So what is it? In either case, WR was not meant to address that. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

12 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

The queue bug really does need to get moved up in priority.  Seems to happen more often when there are more players.

Agree, didn't see any of the number of queue bugs go away in those last tests.

[XenesisII.1540]

Also one thing about queues which I don't know if this is possible for them to do or not.

But, when you have 4 map queues, how many in those queues are actually in the 4 maps already, or sitting outside on another map waiting to get in?

I wonder if it would be possible to do swaps of players that are currently on the maps wanting to swap maps with each other. Like if one player was on EBG wanted to swap to green map, and one player on green map wanted to swap to EBG, it could just do it immediately instead of waiting for an open spot to open on either map to move the line through.

But they already have enough problems trying to properly get someone into a map with auto booting them back of the line so anything that like is probably not possible at all, probably would help clear up lines though, or add more wall runners I guess, I dunno just a passing thought. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Also one thing about queues which I don't know if this is possible for them to do or not.

But, when you have 4 map queues, how many in those queues are actually in the 4 maps already, or sitting outside on another map waiting to get in?

I wonder if it would be possible to do swaps of players that are currently on the maps wanting to swap maps with each other. Like if one player was on EBG wanted to swap to green map, and one player on green map wanted to swap to EBG, it could just do it immediately instead of waiting for an open spot to open on either map to move the line through.

But they already have enough problems trying to properly get someone into a map with auto booting them back of the line so anything that like is probably not possible at all, probably would help clear up lines though, or add more wall runners I guess, I dunno just a passing thought. 

I like the idea in general to move things along. Have seen sudden queue shifts when this happens currently. But I think this would impact those trying to get in and weren't lucky enough to get a map over those that did and just aren't on the map they want to be one. Its kind of the same issue, you brought a toon that was meant for one purpose and then find out its not the right fit for the current situation but that means back in queue if you want to change to another class/build. So do you favor the player that made it in or the one waiting? Can see both sides and that's before the queue bugs. So this one is rough.

[ArchonWing.9480]

People  actually  playing the game mode ls a good thing. Yes the server capacity needs to be better but we also need this information  too on how much more capacity is needed.

And yes we should have better afk. management. But you can't  really expect  a healthy game mode and not have it be in demand.

[ChrisWhitey.9076]

Getting an influx of new players is always a good thing and the beta I am all for but if you have an influx of new people getting a bad experience that is not a good thing so the beta should be on hold until it is fixed is my personal belief. Sounds like no one is denying that these issues exist my thoughts was are they a higher priority to fix then the WR or not.

 

[XenesisII.1540]

3 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I like the idea in general to move things along. Have seen sudden queue shifts when this happens currently. But I think this would impact those trying to get in and weren't lucky enough to get a map over those that did and just aren't on the map they want to be one.

Its kind of the same issue, you brought a toon that was meant for one purpose and then find out its not the right fit for the current situation but that means back in queue if you want to change to another class/build. So do you favor the player that made it in or the one waiting? Can see both sides and that's before the queue bugs. So this one is rough.

You're just switching players who are already on the maps anyways, and really it clears up two spots in the queue line when you switch those players. It would also make it a bit easier for groups to switch maps if they're facing enemy they can't handle but have allies on another map who could. But in any case 4 map queues is a rare event these days to even worry about or develop anything for it, just easier for anet to make everyone go play dead eotm instead (or rather sit in a dead pve map cause no wants to play eotm/wvw without rewards).

As for players who didn't bring the right class, sorry but tough kitten, preplan your game time. If you know you have a guild raid coming up soon then get on the toon you're going to run with them early. If it's coming up to prime time when you know there's queues, get on the proper toon you need before it.

Edited February 12 by XenesisII.1540

[ArchonWing.9480]

10 minutes ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

Getting an influx of new players is always a good thing and the beta I am all for but if you have an influx of new people getting a bad experience that is not a good thing so the beta should be on hold until it is fixed is my personal belief. Sounds like no one is denying that these issues exist my thoughts was are they a higher priority to fix then the WR or not.

 

Well that is the point of labeling it a beta. It already is a sign of ymmv.

And at this rate, I would rather be going faster. It is not like wvw in its normal state is really any better for new players to look at because  at least they will know it is in progress.

 

[SweetPotato.7456]

9 hours ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

World Restructuring [WR] had large queues during prime time and prevented people from getting in the map. Skill lag was god awful because there were too many people on the map with boons. WR was suppose to spread people out to fix these issues but we know now that it is not an unbalanced population issue that is the source of the problem. Anyone else have any thoughts?

WR wasn't suppose to spread people out, it was suppose to group people who play at the same time and match them against each other .... the fact that there are longer q means WR is working as intended, now they just need to figure out the number of players allow in an alliance. IF Alliance UI isn't going ahead, they need to figure out the best way to match guilds together, the "spread" here is guilds who plays different time.... okay something comes to mind, 

 

scenario that suddenly pops into mind: 
We probably do not need Alliance anymore because it would probably be better for anet to put guilds who plays on same and different time zone (assuming there are enough guilds to distribute) together on different teams with their WR system.  if players were given alliance management, they may not recruit ally that plays on different time zone,  anyway

 

spreading players who play on different time zone to different team so that all time zone are filled with players.

Anyway, what I wanted to say was in the first line " WR isn't suppose to spread players out, it groups players up" 

OMG I confuses myself.

[Sleepwalker.1398]

I agree, just leave WR cos players will always bandwagon...well this is what caused the issue in the first place.

Instead just give us events like no-downstate or we had 1 a while back where we could steal the class utilities of defeated enemy, it was fun.

[ChrisWhitey.9076]

So we agree that lag and queues are an issue, but not a lot of comments do think it is a high priority to be fixed? Just interested to know if that is just a few people in the forums or will it continue the majority of the forums as this grows.

[kash.9213]

1 hour ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

So we agree that lag and queues are an issue, but not a lot of comments do think it is a high priority to be fixed? Just interested to know if that is just a few people in the forums or will it continue the majority of the forums as this grows.

I think queues at prime time are an issue, and a bigger issue is likely dead maps the rest of the time. WvW is feeling more like scheduled matches that you hope you don't miss or have to wait in line for than a perpetual realm vs realm game mode. WvW maps are already isolated with no lived-in quality and there's no interaction thematically or mechanically to the rest of the game, so doing one or the other feels like neglecting either or both, especially if you don't have all day to play. WR mostly just intensified that issue for me. 

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

So we agree that lag and queues are an issue, but not a lot of comments do think it is a high priority to be fixed? Just interested to know if that is just a few people in the forums or will it continue the majority of the forums as this grows.

Pretty certain most agreed queues are not an issue. Queues exist and overall are a sign of a healthy gamemode. They dont become an "issue" until it's constant and excessive. IMO we are nowhere near that and I didnt even see it during the first week of the beta which had much more activity than the average WvW week. When you see total queues of 300+ to WvW every other day... maybe then it's time to take a look at the solution Anet already made, EoTM. A 50 man queue to EBG and nowhere else is just people zerging EBG.

For lag we know Anet is unwilling to delete the boonball soooooooooo... 🤷‍♂️

[ChrisWhitey.9076]

16 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Pretty certain most agreed queues are not an issue. Queues exist and overall are a sign of a healthy gamemode. They dont become an "issue" until it's constant and excessive. IMO we are nowhere near that and I didnt even see it during the first week of the beta which had much more activity than the average WvW week. When you see total queues of 300+ to WvW every other day... maybe then it's time to take a look at the solution Anet already made, EoTM. A 50 man queue to EBG and nowhere else is just people zerging EBG.

For lag we know Anet is unwilling to delete the boonball soooooooooo... 🤷‍♂️

Queues are not a healthy game mode for team content. If all maps are queued to 15+ and a guild is scheduled to start they have no place to fit and cancel the run. This means anet doesn't even know how bad the problem can be. Sure it is not an issue if a solo player want to wait but it is not viable for a guild that has a set schedule to just move a 50+ group to play a few hours later.

edit-it doesn't help that EotM is so bad that everyone would rather cancel then go to an overflow map

Edited February 13 by ChrisWhitey.9076
added EotM comment

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

Queues are not a healthy game mode for team content. If all maps are queued to 15+ and a guild is scheduled to start they have no place to fit and cancel the run. This means anet doesn't even know how bad the problem can be. Sure it is not an issue if a solo player want to wait but it is not viable for a guild that has a set schedule to just move a 50+ group to play a few hours later.

edit-it doesn't help that EotM is so bad that everyone would rather cancel then go to an overflow map

I understand your point that people that want to do group content want to do it when they say they want to do it. That's the point of doing group content is to be able to do it together.

Queues are dual purpose. They show that there is an active population and if you want to get into the game you need to get in line. Queues are also meant to show where you might have too many and acts as mechanism to say are you over populated and should you spread out? Overtime that's had a hit and miss effect as some people just said, ok lets see how high we can run this number up.

Now if you are looking to bring a full map queue in at the same time, I think that's more on your guild to make sure their members get online early and in place prior to raid time if they want to make sure everyone is in. If queues are not normal for your guild but they then faced it during the WR, that could show issues in the sorting logic on Anet's end but its also something your guild would need to rethink in how they face what others might see as normal queues. The point of the WR is to find a fine line between queues across all servers in that region and timezone that would be considered prime at the time. 

Side question since I thought we might see this some in the sorts, if you are in a group of 50+ how often do your raids occur weekly and for how long? You might have seen higher than expected queues if your group doesn't fill a regular block up as in use so you might have been sorted to a server that needed to use more bodies to fill in the times your group isn't running. The sort logic should have weighted your group with others of same size and playhours and timezone and divided like groups up. So you might have seen more smaller groups filling in spaces you are not used to seeing on your normal server. 

Potential news though, won't say good because of assumptions, but I wouldn't beat against an analyst at Anet not running numbers on expected people playing and people not during the betas so if you group wasn't getting in queues that still might have been noted as out of the norm. Though I would recommend next time, come over into EotM, there was stuff going on as people waited for queues or at least be in queue to make sure your numbers are counted so that they can adjust map sizes or the number of servers in the mix since the other purpose they haven't seemed to test yet is the scaling of up or down in the numbers of servers in use after a sort.

[ChrisWhitey.9076]

8 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Now if you are looking to bring a full map queue in at the same time, I think that's more on your guild to make sure their members get online early and in place prior to raid time if they want to make sure everyone is in. If queues are not normal for your guild but they then faced it during the WR, that could show issues in the sorting logic on Anet's end but its also something your guild would need to rethink in how they face what others might see as normal queues. The point of the WR is to find a fine line between queues across all servers in that region and timezone that would be considered prime at the time. 

This is a great point and we did start early in the WR when we could and it worked great but all it did was make another guild have to cancel because it was too full for them. Most guilds run for 2 hours and a 15 person queue was moving at 30 minutes per 15 so 1 hour in the queue cleared and 15 people got in another hour and half the group is in and the run is over. It cannot be great for the calculating match making if guilds are not running when they should be then the next pairing gets all out of wack.

Tried to move people over to EtoM and it is a mess. It is not easy to navigate for the new people that have not played it and need to run back and gliding and mounts could help the process but its not supported. If people played it more common it probably would not be as big of an issue but rewards in EotM are not worth playing it on the regular.

Thanks for the feedback you made a great constructive post and appreciate the effort you put in to it.

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

This is a great point and we did start early in the WR when we could and it worked great but all it did was make another guild have to cancel because it was too full for them.

Was this other group known to your group aka Allied or assigned to the same sort? Makes a difference in sort logic versus Alliance Guild logic.

2 hours ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

Most guilds run for 2 hours and a 15 person queue was moving at 30 minutes per 15 so 1 hour in the queue cleared and 15 people got in another hour and half the group is in and the run is over. It cannot be great for the calculating match making if guilds are not running when they should be then the next pairing gets all out of wack.

Agree. Been on servers where guilds would ask others to run outside their time frame and that was never a good idea. Especially if they didn't continue to do so.

2 hours ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

Tried to move people over to EtoM and it is a mess. It is not easy to navigate for the new people that have not played it and need to run back and gliding and mounts could help the process but its not supported. If people played it more common it probably would not be as big of an issue but rewards in EotM are not worth playing it on the regular.

I had thought in the past to add both but after replays, mounts, yes. Gliders might be too much of an aid to defender, so no there. But agree, add in pips since during betas overflows were needed.

2 hours ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

Thanks for the feedback you made a great constructive post and appreciate the effort you put in to it.

Forums Wars 2 is welcome to all. Thanks for the post and the conversation. People say Anet does not read the forums, but we have seen quite a number of items on the forums show up, so I will disagree there. Post away to bring about change. Just be ready to support that post and not expect group think. Good hunting!